Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

    Phoronix: D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

    A set of 13 patches amounting to nearly 800k lines of new code were sent out Sunday morning for adding a D language front-end to the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ontend-For-GCC

  • #2
    Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
      Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
      D has a couple of things which some people like. It is like C++ (but with none of the bizarre intermediate legacy features which sane people avoid like the plague), except that it uses a garbage collector by default, instead of RAII. It also has compile-time execution, so it can execute any valid D expression at compile time instead of executing it every time the program runs; a similar feature exists in other languages like Elixir. This can be very useful for compiling configurations or other human-readable text into dense datastructures cleanly and without any special build system support.

      Rust is safer. D is probably less anal, shooting for some medium where it's hard to introduce allocation bugs, but slower to allocate and free because of GC; you will probably spend less time refining the behaviour of your program in D, but you will pay a performance (and correctness) penalty compared to Rust.

      Comment


      • #4
        Nice; if this makes it, it will become much easier to package D applications, since DMD has a weird license and LDC is not part of LLVM either.

        Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
        And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
        I don't use Rust and the safety features myself, but D has a safe subset for that: http://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html I'm not really sure what Rust has that D wouldn't have.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by microcode View Post

          D has a couple of things which some people like. It is like C++ (but with none of the bizarre intermediate legacy features which sane people avoid like the plague), except that it uses a garbage collector by default, instead of RAII. It also has compile-time execution, so it can execute any valid D expression at compile time instead of executing it every time the program runs; a similar feature exists in other languages like Elixir. This can be very useful for compiling configurations or other human-readable text into dense datastructures cleanly and without any special build system support.
          Exactly

          Originally posted by microcode View Post
          Rust is safer. D is probably less anal, shooting for some medium where it's hard to introduce allocation bugs, but slower to allocate and free because of GC; you will probably spend less time refining the behaviour of your program in D, but you will pay a performance (and correctness) penalty compared to Rust.
          No Rust is not safer than D, both languages just use different way to achive memory safty. Allocating or freeing memory in D is generaly faster than in Rust, but it is not deterministic. AFAIK D is faster then Rust in many cases.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
            Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
            Module system instead of namespaces, UFCS, CTFE, static if, much faster compilation time, GC (I konw it is possible to use GC in C++ too, but you know ) and better syntax which is crucial for many of us.

            Comment


            • #7
              Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by danieru View Post
                Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?
                It seems like issues with code style and quality

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by danieru View Post
                  Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?
                  http://dconf.org/2017/talks/buclaw.pdf
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-5T...rCm7eB&index=9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    Nice; if this makes it, it will become much easier to package D applications, since DMD has a weird license and LDC is not part of LLVM either.
                    DMD 's backend has been relicensed recently, it's now 100% Boost licensed

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X